tv Morning Joe MSNBC January 25, 2013 6:00am-9:00am EST
put rescuer. we asked you why you were aware. john has the answers. imaginary crush on bill karins, and she insists we tune in every morning. >> tell you what, william. you keep watching and i'll stop taking her to dinner. how about that? great show, everyone. "morning joe" starts right now. >> you attempted a few times to talk with her through facetime. and you would see basically what? a black box. >> right. >> and she would say to you, i can see you. i don't know why you can't see me. >> correct. >> didn't you think that was a little weird? >> to be honest, no. >> no? >> i didn't. >> are you that technologically challenged? i am, but someone your age shouldn't be, right? >> i saw a black screen. she said, i can see you and i
can see me. you should be able to see me. i was, like, i don't know what's wrong with your camera. >> hi, i'm just letting you know i got here and i'm getting ready for my first session and just wanted to call you to keep you posted. i miss you. i love you. bye. >> good morning, my friends. it's friday, january 25th. let's take that one apart. with us on set, msnbc political analyst and visiting professor at nyu, former democratic congressman harold ford jr. also senior political editor and white house correspondent for the huffington post, sam stein. former treasury secretary official -- we're talking about the future there -- future treasury secretary. >> former. >> and former treasury official and "morning joe" economic analyst, steve rattner. in d.c., msnbc political analyst and vice president and executive editor of msnbc.com, richard wolffe. nbc news capitol hill correspondent kelly o'donnell
joins us from washington. harold, i'm sorry, i just had to run through that. come on, man. come on. what's going on here? come on. what's going on here? that story is about as clunky and awkward as my red sweater this morning. >> that's awkward. that is awkward. >> that is strange. >> your sweater does look good. >> the sweater looks okay. >> that is strange stuff. let me ask you this. can i just ask you an innocent question? >> sure. >> just a babe in the woods that's wandered in off the streets. and i've just got a question. i don't understand. denzel washington said in "philadelphia," talk to me like i'm a fourth grader. explain it to me. why do you have a guy who's like the number one or number two college prospect in america, he could have any girl, not only on the notre dame campus, but probably on any campus in america. >> fair to say. >> is that fair to say? >> very. >> is that as obvious as my red
sweater? >> i'm not that bright but it's fair to say. >> we've all gone to college. these guys are adored. they are worshipped. why would a dude decide to date, in quote marks, somebody that he didn't see for two years and it ended up that the dude -- that the lady was actually a dude on the other side -- and it doesn't make sense to me, harold. explain it to me. i want to understand. >> i'll be 43 this year. i don't understand all of the online dating. and i've never participated in anything like that, but i can't imagine -- >> that's not what anthony wiener says, but that's okay. you guys had some good times. >> i can't imagine she'd go 2 1/2, 3 years without seeing your girlfriend. >> that's not the story. >> that's an element of the story. >> so allegedly they meet three years ago but they only started dating about six or eight months ago. >> but they never met. >> they never met. they online met.
three years ago. >> i couldn't have started dating had i not met the person. >> that's a little bizarre. >> let's take the absurdity of it all. why did he do it? why did he do it? >> that's what i'm asking you. could you please explain to everybody. i'd like to hear your explanation. >> maybe the wiring isn't all there. >> really? >> i can offer an explanation. he was told that this person was, like, suffering horrific events, a car crash, leukemia or whatever it was and basically on her death bed and he got emotionally attached to this person even if it happened online. i'm trying here. i'm trying here. >> hundreds of hours of phone calls. all of these women. >> that's a level of sensitivity from sam i didn't know we had. >> come on. >> i'm impressed. >> i'm just trying to help the guy out. >> kelly. >> women are always trying to find a terrific man, and to think we only need to go online. >> kelly, do you buy this that one of the best football players
in america at one of the biggest, most revered universities in america would decide not to date human beings and instead for two, three years hang out with somebody online for hours at a time? >> well, i really think that this is some sort of sensitive personal thing. so i don't want to be hard on the guy. but i think we've redefined dating. and so i am kind of -- i'm sort of blown away by that myself. but, you know, i wish him well. i think this is probably terribly embarrassing. and i would think that ladies who meet him in the future will certainly at least want to say hello in person. i suspect he won't be online or using a webcam or any of that for a long time to come. it's one of those awkward things about this world we live in where people feel a sense of intimacy. >> does this damage his draft chances? >> i went to alabama, the alabama crimson tide damaged his stock so badly. they were saying it after the
game. he was a little child out there. he looked lost as if he were sorting through a three-year twitter feed. >> a fiasco coming unfolded. >> he had a bad couple weeks when he went out there. >> i'll tell you what actually was even worse, the fact that the guy knew that it was a hoax. >> right. >> and also -- and actually, this is what's more disturbing, steve, that notre dame knew it was a hoax. >> yes. that was a really interesting question. yes. >> and go out -- now, what he said was -- what he said was, you know, i couldn't just change my story, but if you're notre da dame, this is very easy to take care of, especially when you're dealing with sports reporters. we'd like to interview manti. here's the deal. you can but he doesn't want to talk about his girlfriend. you know what? it's personal to him. her imaginary family gets really hurt when he talks about his imaginary girlfriend. this would have been so easy to avoid. and so, okay, whatever i think
kelly's right, it's a sensitive personal thing he's dealing with. but notre dame, they've got much more to speak to. they let this lie continue. and they knew it was a lie. >> for obvious commercial reasons. >> for obvious commercial reasons. notre dame is the one that offers -- that really needs to explain what's going on here. how did they let that happen? >> but joe? >> yeah? >> what women really want to know is the person who was playing his girlfriend is apparently a guy. and to think that a guy would stay on the phone with you for three or four hours at night is something women have been looking for for a long time. >> exactly. it's a total lie. guys don't do things like that. >> they have the voice mail records. >> come on. >> okay, i'm done. i'm trying my best. >> i don't sleep for three hours. >> so kelly, what's going on with panetta's order and the president and women in combat? are you hearing any disseptemntm
the hill? >> really, no. what we are hearing is just the question of can it be done in a way that will ensure that there's still the kind of unit cohesion and efficiency, the physical standards in certain kinds of units be maintained. but i think there's been a sense from both sides especially on the armed services committee who look at these issues up close that the time has come and that it's not a battle they're going to fight or they don't even see really a reason to. i think in part knowing that if they put trust in the commanders to do it in a way that makes sense and allows for this sort of career advancement that women in the military have not been able to have access to because they weren't in these kinds of jobs, i think that there's pretty smooth sailing for this. >> but richard, there will be, obviously, limits, correct? for certain assignments that women can do based on physical ability? >> well, i think there are physical limits for everyone in a combat position.
i don't think that's particularly different. >> if i can interrupt you, it is. there's a reason why there are no women in the nfl. there's a reason why there are no women in major league baseball. there's a reason why there are no women in, you know, most male-centered professional sports. there is a difference physically between men and women. can we still say that in 2013? >> yes. >> you can't assume that every man is ready and capable. you may be, playing in the nfl. >> i don't assume that. i only want men that can meet the standards. i think this is very important, richard, because i just -- i hope the pentagon thinks through this in a way that doesn't put american lives at risk because the one thing that keeps men in combat right now fighting, as i've heard my entire life from veterans who have been there, it's not the flag.
it's not the great idea of american democracy. it's your buddy next to you. and they leave no man. and if women are in combat, they will leave no woman behind. and the question is, will that, in any way, jeopardize the safety of men and women that are going to be fighting now in the future? >> yeah, joe, i just think we've moved beyond that, right? >> i hope not. i hope not, richard. we're talking about people's safety. move beyond what? >> yeah. the point is, everyone has to pass physical tests. just because you're a man doesn't mean to say that the physical tests are any different. and they won't be any different for a woman either. you have to have extreme levels of physical capability to be in a combat zone given the nature and the professionalism. and yes, the spirit of the american military. all i'm saying is we've moved beyond the idea that somehow that spirit is confined just to men. the idea that you would leave no man behind is also something that women in these combat zones
also exhibit. and that's why people are comfortable with it. >> exactly. but steve, there is a difference. there is a difference physically, for the most part, in what men are able to accomplish and what women are able to accomplish out on a battlefield, on a football field, around a track. again, this is not shocking. this is not open to debate. >> just going back to your point -- >> and by the way, i just want to be very clear because i'm sure people are freaking out right now, i'm not saying i don't want women in combat. women can be in combat, but i'll be damned, if we find out that the pentagon is lowering standards for politically correct reasons, then you know what? then the blood of the dead americans in future battles will be on their hands. that's what we've got to make sure doesn't happen. >> look, i'm not even sure it's lowering standards. if you take a 120-pound woman who passes every test, she's incredibly physically fit. >> in better shape than me.
>> you get hit with a bullet somewhere in your 200 -- we're not going to talk about it -- >> no, i'm 230 pounds. let's use mika who's probably about 125, 130 pounds. >> and incredibly fit. >> in much better shape than me. and you guys are out on the battlefield and you get hit, how does she drag you back? >> whereas if she gets hit, i can throw her up on my shoulder, and we can keep running forward. this is a very important conversation that i've got to say i'm really surprised we haven't heard discussed a lot more. i heard you guys -- >> i understand the hypotheticals that you guys are putting out there, and i guess that, you know, that makes sense as a concern. again, to richard's point, what they're not saying is that every woman should be allowed into combat. they're saying restrictions on women in combat should be lifted. no offense to mika who's not here, she can't lift someone like joe. they're going to put someone who can handle the responsibilities. now, i understand -- >> can i be really honest with
you? i have not met a lot of women in my lifetime that could lift me or guys who are 6'4", 220, 230 pounds. >> not that many women will end up in combat. hold on, let me just finish. because the whole important point of this is that there was a restriction that was discriminatory. and the important point is that they have lifted it. yes, the execution of the new policy matters. and if it's poorly executed, of course it will be upsetting. it's a valid and important thing that they lifted that restriction. i think it matters. >> i totally agree with you. and then the other point i'd make on your side, it is no longer about 250-pound guys with shields and spears going at each other. a lot of it is mechanized. >> we don't have horses and bayonets. >> excuse me? >> we don't have horses and bayonets as obama said. >> vehicles in the combat zones that are in the front lines that don't involve having to pull 240-pound guys. >> that's what, again, i hope
this is done in a way that deals more with combat readiness than it does effectiveness. i am not suggesting for a second that women aren't as capable of leading or running or i think in some ways more capable of leading and running. not just a unit but the air force, the marines. i've got no problem with women, generals and admirals. again, i just want to make sure, harold ford, that this is tailored as tightly as possible to what is best for the armed forces and not what's best for some political agenda in washington, d.c. >> it's my understanding -- and i hope everybody takes what you're saying in the vein in which you are expressing it which is how do you ensure we're not compromising anything. i think that's a legitimate question. if you look at the way this was voted upon, i think all of the joint chiefs, it was a unanimous vote. i would imagine all of these things were considered and
perhaps as this decision is elaborated upon, these details will come out even more. so there's a greater understanding. i don't think anyone disagrees with the decision. but i think there's a legitimate question, and you've asked it. i imagine it will be answered more fully in the coming days. >> a lot of industries -- and not just the military -- are male dominated. it never works in reverse. it's never that there's a female-dominated industry that is opening up its gates to men and we start asking -- >> nursing. >> nursing. >> so what? we've gone well beyond that. no one is saying men aren't so and so enough to be a nurse. >> no, but patients will call them a doctor before they would identify them as a nurse. >> but we're not questioning -- i'm being sincere, we're not questioning a man's ability to be a nurse just because he's a man. we're not saying he's too big to handle the responsibilities of nurses. >> sam, i think really the point is fair that there are physical differences, on average, between men and women in terms of size and strength and all that, and we have to recognize it.
remember also, there's one other piece of this that is important, which is part of this is recognizing women who are ready in combat. >> right. >> with the ability to get combat pay, combat recognition, promotions, things like that. >> the women who are battle ready in afghanistan i think the number is 152. >> there's a profile on the page of "the new york times" of a woman that said when the bullets started flying, nobody was asking what gender i was. again, i'm sure there are people out there that will want to take what is being said this morning by me and try to twist it around. and you enjoy that if that helps you ease. i'm concerned about the safety not only of the men in combat but the women in combat in the future, and i hope -- >> so are they, joe, because many of them are young mothers and they're not going to want to put themselves in a job where they don't feel as capable. so part of this is opening a door, but it doesn't mean every woman in uniform, even the most fit and the most skilled will
want each of those jobs if they themselves feel there's something about that role they feel they won't be able to perform just for their own self-interest of surviving and getting home to their own young kids. what you're talking about here is certainly worthy of being pursued and will be, but i don't think we should lose sight of the fact that not every woman in uniform wants these same jobs all at the same time. >> right. and by the way, i want to make sure we understand here, because we have these conversations ten years ago where, you know, some 75-year-old men on the armed services would say, well, you know, the emotions of a woman, once a month, blah, blah, blah. >> so we're past that. >> we're past that. we're talking about physical combat and what you can do in afghanistan when you have to drag a wounded buddy out. >> i thought the important point is that none of us could carry you. >> well, i don't think there are a lot of people around here that could carry me. quickly before we go to break, we want to talk to richard on the other side of the break on. a new poll is showing now that a
majority of americans have a favorable view of president obama's gun-control proposals. while the government has come out against the plan, the numbers are pretty stark. 53% are favorable. 41%, unfavorable. more interesting as you go into the poll, the favorables are much more intense than the unfavorables. which means that we've heard for some time, richard wolffe, you know, the gun owners are so intense, and they're the ones that are going to always make phone calls and they're the ones that are always going to be engaged. in this poll and i'm sure we'll see it in other polls, a majority of americans are more intense about passing some sane gun regulation than are those small groups of people that are going to fight the political death over assault weapons and being able to have high-capacity magazines. >> a couple of things. first of all, if you break down
the individual proposals, the support is even higher, right? universal background checks, you get way higher than 50%. and those numbers reflect the president's own favorability right now which says this is the moment when he can actually push this through because his own numbers are so high. the other part of it is that the grass roots that you're talking about have not been organized to date. and that's where you're seeing the impact of people like moveon.org or bloomberg's money or even if it comes to pass, the obama campaign's, you know, evolved state, if they can get their act together, then they can be a counterweight to the very successful, very organized nature of the nra's grass-roots operation. but this is favorable territory if they can thread the needle for people like joe manchin. >> the numbers are overwhelming. you have joe manchin who's now coming together, has a bipartisan bill out we'll be talking about. he's together with senator kirk out of illinois, a republican, talking about universal background checks. again, this is something that
stands anywhere from 85% to 92% approval rating. the nra is still against it. we'll see if any republicans are still against it, too. steve, i'm going to -- since mika's not here -- >> oh, god. >> my breakfast has just arrived. and i'm going to prepare, and i'm going to make it even harder for a woman to carry me from combat. and we'll be right back. when we come back, we're going to be talking to mary matalin. i'm very excited about that. she likes munchkins as well. "fortune's" leigh gallagher, "the washington post's" eugene robinson and actor victor garber. up next, mike allen with the top stories in the "politico playbook." first here's bill karins with a check on the weekend forecast. bill, i hope the forecast is as sweet as this munchkin going down. >> need a little powdered sugar on top of that, too. >> sugar all the way through. >> nice. >> this one's for you, mika. >> good morning, everyone. snow is on the way. it's already snowing in chicago this morning. much of illinois and indiana
breaking out in light snow and eventually working to the east coast. this is not a blockbuster storm. it's large in size but weak in intensity. many areas from the great lakes to the ohio valley, you'll get a fluffy dusting to two inches during the day today. the only area i'm a little concerned with is our friends down in the deep south. we have the potential for ice. freezing rain from areas just outside of memphis to the mountains of tennessee, the smokies, also north of atlanta, the mountains of georgia. be careful. we could have icy problems out there later today. again, not a lot of snow. d.c., richmond, raleigh, up to philadelphia, possibly one to two inches. that's about it. it's a very cold morning, as advertised. look at northern new england, still with negative windchills. today's forecast, again, the light snow is the story. also rainy weather for arizona. as we go through your weekend, we get rid of this storm. still chilly but not as bad. we actually begin to warm things up. i think saturday's really the last day of the cold spell for the northern plains and new england. by the time we get to sunday, even minneapolis gets up near freezing. new england heads back up into the upper 20s, low 30s with some
sunshine. my only concern, if you're in iowa or illinois on sunday, you could have a little mini freezing rainstorm that we'll have to deal with. again, the story on this friday, some light snow heading across the country. later on this afternoon and tonight, washington, d.c., getting another coating of snow. you're watching "morning joe" brewed by starbucks. [ thunder crashes ]
hey, let's take a look at the "morning papers." "usa today," president obama has nominated mary jo white to chair the securities and exchange commission. white's going to be the first prosecutor to lead the s.e.c. in a move that many interpret to mean tougher policing of wall street. the president also nominated richard cordray for the consumer protection bureau. steve rattner, what do you think about these nominees? >> i think it does send a signal that the president wants them to
be tough. mary joe white, having never been a regulator i think is fair and able to do a good job. richard cordray has been admired in this political swamp. he's been in there as an interim. he's a good guy, former state attorney general, i believe, from ohio. and he should be confirmed. there's no argument for not confirming this guy. >> "the new york times" says governor chris christie has a new facebook friend. mark zuckerberg is hosting a fund-raiser at his california home for the governor next month. zuckerberg who donated $100 million to newark schools said he admired christie's leadership on education and reform. not happy with the endorsement and is calling on zuckerberg to cancel the event. >> absurd. >> "the birmingham news," the question that i know sam stein and all of his connecticut friends are asking this morning, how did legendary alabama coach bear bryant get his signature houndstooth hat?
well, butch valdone was his friend. he says he picked it out to match his jacket and the coach started wearing it with anything. butch said bear was hopeless when it came to fashion and he even labeled his clothes so the coach could figure out which articles went with which. >> how did that make its way into the morning reads, that piece? i don't know. >> because joe has the same issue. >> i have the same issue. everything is numbered here. you think i just threw this sweater on? >> no, it's too good. >> come on. >> a lot of thought went into that. >> exactly. >> things like that just don't happen. >> numbers. >> there's a mathematical formula behind this beauty. >> there is. don't say that math can't be beautiful. that houndstooth hat, everybody in alabama, man. houndstooth everywhere. "the l.a. times," j.j. abrams has signed on to direct the next edition of the "star wars" saga,
and my son, andrew, could not be more excited. abrams is best known for directing and producing "star trek" and "lost." "star wars 7" is due out in 2015, and we all pray to god, those of us that grew up watching "star wars," that they will be better, the next three will be better than the last three. and they will be. >> he's probably the most talented guy right now. and he and lucas are good friends so this will be a great collaboration. >> let's hope lucas will allow somebody else to write the script. and i'm serious. >> the last three were terrible. >> i tell you what, the only script he didn't write, "empire strikes back," was the best one. >> it was pretty good. >> and on the cover -- >> he's written some pretty good ones. >> "the empire strikes back," the last three were so weak, though, and odd. >> keep your opinions to yourself. >> no more defending you. >> okay. on the cover of this week's
"parade" magazine, emeril lagasse talking about cooking for the super bowl in new orleans. and a guy who is always cooking, the chief white house correspondent for "politico," mike allen is here with the "morning playbook." mike, what are you talking about today on "politico"? >> first of all, i love that bear bryant had garanimals. how great is that? >> you've got to number these things. >> we have two new players in the gun-control debate. rahm emanuel, mayor of chicago, is making this a top issue. joe, you remember that between the clinton and obama white houses, he worked in financial services. he's using the muscle of chicago's accounts to push two banks that are doing business with gun manufacturers to say either use your influence to get them to moderate how they sell their weapons or stop doing business with them. second, more visible player,
gabby giffords, the former congresswoman shot in arizona and her husband, mark phillips, say they're going to be much more aggressive about lobbying on capitol hill. they have a group with a super pac arm that's going to surf that public opinion you were just pointing to. and they describe themselves as gun-owning moderates. they're from the mountain west. but obviously have incredible moral authority on the gun issue. they're going on start using that more and more. mark phillips, her husband, tells "politico" in an interview that they're going to do whatever they can to build support for this legislation, even though as the moment house republicans are turning up their noses at it. >> hey, mike, also last night, speaking of republicans at the rnc meeting, louisiana governor bobby jindal had strong advice for his party. take a listen. >> today's conservatism is completely wrapped up in solving the hideous mess that is the federal budget. the burgeoning deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall in our entitlement programs. we have seemed to have an
obsession with government bookkeeping. this is a rigged game, and it is the wrong game for us to play. no, the republican party does not need to change our principles. but we might need to change just about everything else we are doing. we've got to stop being the stupid party. and i'm serious. it's time for a new republican party that talks like a -- it's time for us to articulate our plans and visions for america in real terms. it's no secret we had a number of republicans that damaged the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. i'm here to say we've had enough of that. >> now, i heard some people speaking up there. i think that's one of the key things that this party has to do. you do it quickly. george w. bush always did it when he was president. somebody comes out and says something stupid like the congressman from georgia, paul brown, a couple days ago said barack obama, he didn't follow the u.s. constitution. he followed the soviet constitution. it doesn't cost republican leaders anything to speak out and say, that is a stupid and offensive remark. it offends swing voters.
let's talk about issues that are going to balance the budget, save medicare and get americans back to work. we've got to speak out against the stupidities. bobby says we've got to stop being the stupid party, and you start by disciplining your most stupid members. >> joe, that's right. bobby jindal said last night that the party needs to stop insulting the intelligence of the american people. joe, he's going to use his platform as chairman of the republican governors association, also as one of the most obvious of the 2016 candidates to make these points. he said government needs to be much smaller. he said that we need about half the federal employees we have. we need about 25% of the government buildings we have. my colleague, james holman, called this reagan's new federalism on steroids. but joe, of all the things bobby jindal said last night, the one that you will most agree with is he says the party needs to be taking a bigger stand on fiscal
issues. stop fighting these small-potatoes issues, these different cliffs. the party's going to lose those. he says the party should be making a bigger case about taxes, spending, shoot for the mountains and not get dragged down on what he says is clearly democrats and the president's turf. >> we have to focus, steve, i believe republicans -- i've said it time and time again -- on taxes. on cutting spending. on saving entitlements. on saving america from this crushing national debt. it grew $6 trillion under barack obama over the past term. and try to avoid some of these other issues. but i hear bobby jindal's new federalism on crack talking about cutting federal employees by three-quarters, et cetera, et cetera. that ain't going to happen. with the changing demographics and where america is and where it's going over the next 20 every 30 years. >> that's the issue. if you separate it, i think the first part not being the stupid
party anymore is sort of a no-brainer. why would you go around insulting important interest groups. >> women. >> yeah, the 47%, all that stuff. but then you get to his policy proposals, and i don't think he's in the mainstream of this country when you talk about 25% of the government buildings, cutting employees. you know, every poll, joe, as you know, even of republicans say people want these services. they just don't want to pay as much taxes. they want to have the spending disciplined. but i don't think they want to go as far as jindal is talking about. >> what i'm curious about is he talked about the need to focus beyond budget, size of government and taxes. what i want to see from him is what other issues is he going to tackle? what's the conservative platform for immigration reform? what's the conservative platform for health care going forward? those are the things i want to see filled in that i think could make him a -- distinguish him from other republicans in that 2016. >> i'm interested in hearing republicans and democrats that talk even more about job creation. >> yes. >> there was a time when republicans would talk about how to reduce regulations or create clarity not only in the tax code
but across the business landscape to allow, for instance, energy jobs to continue to grow. we have a natural gas export revolution happening in the country. where do republicans who are talking about that -- for that matter, i was in detroit over the last few days, where is the urban growth message from democrats and republicans alike? i hear the spending cuts and tax reform, and i agree with all of that, but there's a vast majority of the country that's experiencing something very, very different in job creation and growth seem to be lacking from the party, your party -- >> both parties. >> which for years we've talked about it and has laid out a clear agenda for. >> kelly o'donnell, the disconnect, in my opinion, from the president's inaugural address and where we are as a country, not just on debt, but on job creation, on falling average income, he focused on some issues that are very important to some constituencies. and i certainly understand that. but certainly doesn't speak to middle america who still is very
concerned economically about where we are. do you hear any talk on the hill about the president's items pushed in the president's inaugural address being pushed through the democratic senate or the republican house? >> well, there are certainly some challenges. there are some things the president has talked about including trying to make the senate work with greater function which wasn't a part of the inaugural but is a message from the president. there was a development last night, i was on the hill till 9:00 or 9:30 last night when the senate made some changes to the filibuster. that does have a real-world impact for people because it affects how quickly bills can come to the floor or changes can be made. there's talk about that. there will be another fight about taxes because democrats who are saying they will put forward a budget proposal, chuck schumer and patty murray and others are saying there will be new revenue in it. talk to mitch mcconnell said it's settled based on the raising of rates from the fiscal
cliff deal, so there are some real divisions. and monday seems like a long, long time ago already. >> it certainly does. >> joe? >> yeah, mike. >> pick up on sam stein's point about immigration. today is a red-letter day on that issue. two signal events. one in today's "wall street journal," jeb bush, former florida governor, calls for comprehensive immigration reform. that's what the president wants. that's what democrats are pushing for and what republicans are resisting. jeb bush, one of the most powerful voices in the party, said they should go the president's way on that. fix it in a big bill. second, sam stein's colleague, john war, points out on huff post that marco rubio, florida senator, is very smartly trying to change the vocabulary of this debate, detoxify the term amnesty which has allowed talk radio, conservatives to dismiss almost any move on immigration. he's saying what we have under president obama, what we currently have is amnesty.
republicans are going to try and change it. he's trying to take the power away from that word. >> all right. we'll see what happens. i saw the other day -- if anybody has an explanation, let me know -- jeb bush, they had approvals/disapprovals, it was that story on hillary and how her approval rating was so high. jeb bush was upside down by ten points. >> it's only his last name. >> maybe they thought it was george. >> that last name. what should he change it to stein? >> how did you come up with that? new orleans enters a brave new era. the hornets are out and the pelicans -- the pelicans are in. that's coming up next in sports. keep it right here on "morning joe." [ man ] ring ring... progresso
this reduced sodium soup says it may help lower cholesterol, how does it work? you just have to eat it as part of your heart healthy diet. step 1. eat the soup. all those veggies and beans, that's what may help lower your cholesterol and -- well that's easy [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. executor of efficiency. you can spot an amateur from a mile away... while going shoeless and metal-free in seconds. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle...and go. you can even take a full-size or above, and still pay the mid-size price. now this...will work. [ male announcer ] just like you, business pro. just like you. go national. go like a pro.
this is why we do this! freedom! the open road! no doubt! and progressive has great coverage and policies starting at just $95 a year. i dig that! most bikers do -- that's why progressive is number one! whoo! whoo! let's renew up. yeah, that sounds good, man. do i have any bugs in my teeth? no, you're good. number one in motorcycle insurance. now, that's progressive. ♪ there goes my hero ♪ watch him as he goes hey, detective? >> reporter: mayor booker shows up and takes charge. >> this is brutal weather. this dog is shaking really bad. and you just can't leave your dogs out on a day like this and go away. >> reporter: another cruiser comes. the mayor picks up the dog, carries her over to keep warm
inside. the mayor finds out the dog's owner's cell phone number and calls. >> i'm, like, yes, it's cory booker. hi. yes, of course. he's telling me about cha-cha. >> reporter: he says they were visiting over in queens and had no idea cha-cha was outside. >> no idea until they texted him and tweeted him and said, there's a dog outside, cory booker. come rescue it. we'll have the camera ready. put the dog in the car and let's warm the car up. did he jump the shark? >> maybe. maybe this one was a little bit too much. a little too, you know, pre-planned. >> what does this have to do with sports? >> it's a segue. >> nothing, but this is "saturday night live," and hopefully they were watching and will do the skit next saturday. on to sports now, one quick sports story. the new orleans hornets will change their names to the new orleans pelicans next season. for those familiar with new orleans, that was the name, the pelicans, of their minor league baseball team for years. the reaction on twitter has been a healthy mix of outrage and
confusion. former new orleans hornet chris paul tweeted, "pelicans? #i'mnotrollin." we have pitched our logo to the front office. a little childish, a little cartoonish, but it was fun, right? without further ado, we bring you the pelicans' logo. silence. >> i like it. i like it. >> it has a little bit of the new orleans feel with the text and everything. that is the angry, angry pelican in the middle. it is a bird of prey, in its own defense. you know, it's got a little -- >> it's not the most intimidating bird, but it will work, right? >> i wouldn't mind the hat on the jersey. it's not horrible. anthony davis. i think his unibrow looks better than the jersey. that's not an insult. he's proud of that. up next, the "must-read opinion pages." you're watching "morning joe" brewed by starbucks. ♪
welcome back to "morning joe." a beautiful shot of the capitol. i just went over to the fax machine. and mika just faxed her "must-read op-ed." she's in nice. this has come straight from nice. >> unbelievable. >> mika's home office in nice, the south of france. it's a good place to go in january. >> yeah, january. not so good. >> so why is she there? >> she doesn't have to get up at 4:30 in the morning. >> smart. >> she's got that villa. >> you've got to use the villa. >> i didn't know there were, like, 30,000 square foot villas. >> people to look after her. >> she will tell you that she is doing this, it's like "downton abbey." you keep the villa in the south
of france going on because it's for the staff. it's for the little people. >> moral obligation. >> exactly. >> for the small people. >> she's in it for the little people. and so mika had one of her little people, i guess, from the south of france fax this to me. and she's picked out peggy noonan's must-read op-ed from "the wall street journal." "lessons conservatives need to learn" from our dear friend, peggy. "some conservatives are saying mrs. clinton looked unhinged, angry. in their dreams. she came across as human and indignant and emerged untouched. what air there was in the benghazi balloon leaked out. all this looked like another example of mindless personal entrepreneurialism of the republicans on the hill. they're all in business for themselves. they make their speech, asked their question, and it's not connected to anybody else's speech or question. they aren't part of something
that moves and makes progress. minority parties can't act like this, in such a slobby, un-unified way. hill republicans continue not to understand that they are the face of the party when the cameras are trained on washington. they don't understand how they look, which is like ants on a sugar cube. and richard wolffe, as we read peggy noonan's words and we see hillary clinton's testimony, some of which i didn't buy, for good reason. and we can get into that later if somebody wants to. but we see their intemperate remarks even about the secretary of state's emotions. i wonder if they've seen ms. clinton's standings in the poll, you know, the latest poll has her at a 67% favorableability
rating and wonder if they really think that they're going to draw blood by making intemperate comments. peggy's exactly right. this is a party that's not unified. we've got a lot of solo players who make a lot of money, raise a lot of money, saying stupid things that harm the party. >> right. this does get back to bobby jindal saying let's not be the stupid party here. it's not just going up against clinton with high popularity numbers. it's that she had a strong sense and justified sense of righteous indignation here. and it was about the lives of the people who were lost. so to the extent -- and it's fairly limited -- but to the extent that those republicans who were out there on their, you know, personal mission on benghazi, that they had any justification for pursuing this in the way they did, it was about the lives of the people who were lost. and here you're going up against hillary clinton who was really very genuine in saying that she
was moved and that their obscure, arcane questions about sunday talk shows were not nearly as important as the security questions and about the people whose lives were lost. you know, she outmaneuvered them. she outmaneuvered them with genuine feeling. and people across washingto vot respond to genuine emotion as opposed to the games they're playing around talking points. >> and harold, give her her due. she's been a great secretary of state. you can do that as a republican. you can say that you're moved by her own heartfelt emotion over the death of her friends. and the ambassador. you can do all of that. but you can quietly -- and i think more persuasively -- ask the question of secretary clinton, secretary clinton, we respect you so much, and we know you did everything you could do. could i ask, though, why didn't you pay more attention to the
individual cable that came in from the ambassador before he died? and then, of course, that's when she came back. they actually had her on the defensive. oh, i get millions of ca -- if they had not shifted into overdrive, they could go yes, you do get millions of cables every year addressed to you, but you don't get even a dozen cables addressed to you from an ambassador in a war zone telling you that his life's on the line. i respect you, madam secretary. >> not only with emotion but with leadership. i think peggy's point that the discombobulated state of republicans, there's a disconnect between what they're asking. they seemed not to have an overall -- overarching agenda other than, again, to score personal points themselves. and what i never got out of the hearing, i want to hear -- and i thought she did a very good job and would love to have that conversation later. i don't know where she had deficiencies, but i would have loved to have heard republicans say tell us how we can know going forward that cables like this coming in someone will see.
and two, what steps are being taken and what can congress do to ensure that you have the resources going forward? that would have been a win-win for republicans and dpemocrats and the country would have felt better. >> they should have just stayed on it. you got the cable. >> calmly. >> calmly. i respect you, madam secretary, okay. and i know you would have done everything you could do to protect these people. but you've got to admit, when you get a cable from an ambassador that died soon after saying he needed security and you had ignored that and he had been telling people on the hill, we need more security, they should have gone that way instead of questioning whether she was faking emotion. >> that was the most compelling piece of the whole testimony where they had some room. not that she had to have personally looked at that cable, but if she had said looked, i get 1.4 million cables, fine. who's in charge of reading cables? isn't there somebody who should have read this cable? >> yeah, there's an ambassador in a war zone that says his life's in danger. still ahead, "the new
yorker's" dexter filkins, david gregory and eugene robinson. we're back in a moment. [ kimi ] atti and i had always called oregon home. until i got a job in the big apple. becoming a fulltime indoor cat wasn't easy for atti. but he had purina cat chow indoor. he absolutely loved it. and i knew he was getting everything he needed to stay healthy indoors. and after a couple of weeks, i knew we were finally home! [ female announcer ] purina cat chow indoor. and for a delicious way to help maintain a healthy weight, try new purina cat chow healthy weight. [ construction sounds ] ♪ [ watch ticking ] [ engine revs ]
let's say you pay your guy around 2% to manage your money. that's not much you think. except it's 2% every year. does that make a difference? search "cost of financial advisors" ouch. over time it really adds up. then go to e-trade and find out how much our advice costs. spoiler alert: it's low. really? yes, really.
e-trade offers investment advice and guidance from dedicated, professional financial consultants. it's guidance on your terms, not ours. that's how our system works. e-trade. less for us. more for you. welcome back to "morning joe." we've got harold ford jr. and steve rattner with us along with richard wolffe in d.c. and joining us at the table, "fortune" magazine's assistant managing editor, leigh gallagher. and with us from new orleans, home of the -- what are they
called, the watches? wasps? >> the pelicans. >> the pelicans. >> mary matalin, and she's even wearing the gear, man. this is huge! >> very huge. good morning. look what i got. "morning joe." >> you've got to show the other side. is that the "morning joe" mug? >> no, you haven't given me one, but it's kind of a knock-off "morning joe" mug. >> we need to give you one. mary, we were just reading peggy noonan, talking about conservatives not quite getting it, the rnc is trying to figure out how to turn things around. bobby jindal yesterday had a speech saying that the republicans had to stop being the stupid party. what's your take on how we turn things around as we move forward? >> well, just as it happens, governor jindal was at james' class -- he teaches a class at tulane this week and gave an expanded version of that
commentary to these kids. and most of them are liberals, but they're all big thinkers, good thinkers, there's conservatives in the class. anyway, the point of the stupid party is, we're against rape, okay? we should make that clear. but we shouldn't -- we should find a way to connect the principles that are at the foundation of this country and its success and its exceptionalism and it goes to families. we who live by that philosophy, live by that daily code understand it. we somehow are not conveying it. we're not conveying what the role and scope of government should be, and more precisely, for some reason, i think we say this till we're blue in the face, we can't sustain this scope and this role of government that we're currently on the trajectory for. but i'm not worried. i'm very optimistic. >> well, i'm glad one of us is. why don't you tell me, in just a
really quick overview, why is it that not so long ago, when you and i were growing up following politics, republicans were the party that we won elections. we won by 40 -- you know, we won 49 states. we would laugh at democrats because they were always on defense. they were always out of the mainstream. and we won five out of six elections. democrats now have won five out of the last six elections and the popular vote. what's the difference? why is that? >> well, as you noted, i'm in new orleans as part of the real world. and i would take issue with when we were growing up. i think we're still growing up, joe. what's going on in the real world, not just new orleans, but starting here, we've had -- we were down on our knees in some combination of good government, good leadership, not profligate
spending with the private sector. we've had number one education gains in the country. we're the number one brain game, the number one entrepreneurial start- start-up. the principles are winning. there are 30 republican governors out there. scott walker just won his fight, in those 30 states that are being governed with economic principles and good government principles, reform government, modern government. their economies are growing at twice the rate of the national government. so that's why i'm optimistic. it's not -- there are principles at work. there are economics that work. it doesn't work. so my long-term view is that the states will soon be bailing out the feds. >> we shall see. leigh, you're writing a book right now talking about the demographic changes that are basically putting an end to the suburbs as we know it. these same demographic changes present a tremendous challenge for the republican party on one side. but on the other side presents a tremendous challenge to the
party of big government. we are going to spend the next 30 years, at some point -- now, this president is ignoring the reality. his inaugural speech could not have been any more disconnected from the reality that we now face economically. but at some point those demographics could actually help small-government conservatives because we're going to have to figure out how to scale back in a smart way. >> it's true. and the demographics are happening -- it's not just the ethnic makeup of our country, it's the birth rate falling that's going to affect all of us. it's changed in the marriage rate. this country is changing, and it's changing pretty quickly and quite dramatically. so these things are going to affect everybody. one thing i think is interesting about the republican party, the changes that it's seen over the past several years play out in its relationship to business, in particular. and if you look at, for example, you know, the tea party has seen the rise -- or more people in the party from smaller rural communities, small towns which actually you could argue goes against the thesis of my book,
but, you know, it's no longer aligned with big business. and that's a very big deal. in many ways, many people in the republican party are becoming suspicious of big business. and the republican party used to be the party of big cities, big corporate interests, and that's kind of changed as well. and i think that's something that's not going totally noticed here. >> harold, that's one of the things that bobby jindal talked about. it's ironic, we've become the party of big. during george w. bush's years, we were the party of big government. we became the party of big business. republicans weren't always the party of big business. ronald reagan, he went after big government, big business and big unions. somehow republicans have become wed to defending big businesses no matter how big they are and big billionaires regardless of how few taxes they pay percentagewise. that ain't a winning combination. >> they've become defenders and they've become aligned with that group whether they are or they
aren't. i agree with leigh's premise that you find remaking of politics across the board. democrats more and more are even aligned with larger business interests. and it makes sense in a lot of ways when you talk about the democrats' success in national elections, business in america looks to government to be supportive and to be helpful, and it should. i'm a pro-business, pro-markets democrat that believes we've got to figure out how, to bobby jindal's point, recal bakacalib compass of politics. today the politics in washington is broken and dysfunctional and not producing results with the magnitude of challenges the country is facing. >> steve rattner. >> one of the things that republicans have managed to do in the course of this self-emulation, is they've alienated themselves from big business not so much on their policies but on just their way of doing business. big business looks at them and says, how do you run a country
with debt-ceiling debacles, fiscal cliffs with no decisions being made? and so it's a little bit like that old line, i didn't leave my heart. my party left me. i think a lot of big businessmen feel republicans have just gone a little bit crazy, and they are sort of now a group without a home because they're not democrats either. but it's another problem area for republicans. >> you saw that during the fiscal cliff. you know, when you had this parade of these big ceos going down to washington, more engaged arguably than any time in the last several years, but yet it didn't really have an impact at all. and i think part of that is because their message was, you've got to compromise, but part of that is because they weren't really saying anything specifically. they weren't hyper-engaged in a way they were calling them up and said there's what you have to compromise on. it was appealing to the mass populous. >> that group which i'm involved with left really disappointed/disgusted with what goes on in washington. >> as we all were. >> right. >> and that's true. >> both sides. so mary, what's the difference between now and, say, 1994,
'93/'94? we were in the minority. but we had newt leading the charge along with trent lott and others in the minority. connie mack back in '93/'94, and you had haley barbour running the rnc. there was a mplan moving forwar. who's that strong republican leader now or leaders that can bring us together even when we're wandering through the wilderness? trying to figure out how to get to israel? >> i happen to live in paradise here, so i'm not quite as pessimistic as y'all are up there. and i'm not -- the world's not anti-big business or pro-big business, it's just the reality of economics is that the greatest number of jobs, which is what everybody out in the real world is concerned about, are created by start-ups, and they're created by small businesses. and the way to jump start that is our principles, which are the same as you go up the ladder to big business. we need regulation that doesn't
strangle us but that cements the kind of rules of the road for all businesses. and we need tax reform. we need energy reform. we need all those kinds of reforms that have only been espoused by republicans. so we're saying we're not winning, but i'll say again, we're winning at the states. we're rinwinning at the legislae level, and change comes from the ground up, which is a concept in conservatism, it's a concept in catholicism, it's called subsidiary. the closer to the effort, the better the outcome. so i'm not pessimistic. i don't want to hurt anybody's feelings up there, but everyone thinks, as always thought, it's been dysfunctional, and they're kind of throwing their hands up. no one in this last election, i have a word for this president, it's delusional. if he thinks people voted for climate change, cap and trade or they voted for some of the things he talked about in his
inaugural, they did not. they still do not support his signature policy. they do not support the way in which this government is growing. i don't care if it's business or if it's states. it's certainly citizens do not think they voted for what they heard on inauguration day. >> mary, good morning, harold ford. congratulations. i hope y'all have a good super bowl down there. in light of what you said, and i can appreciate living in the real world. and we being a little disconnected. >> we actually have to -- you know, when we walk out of here, we walk out of our homes, we actually have to put on like a space helmet. because this is not -- this is not the real world. and i know that this is shocking to mary matalin who was never, ever, ever an occupant of washington, d.c., or new york city. >> there's no convert -- yeah, that's why i can say it, joe. i'm not trying to hurt anybody's feelings. >> nobody's feelings are hurt. >> i'm messing with you a bit.
tell james i said hello. >> tell james i said hello. >> why is it if the president is so disconnected -- i happen to disagree, but let's take you at your word -- why can't republicans find success against him? why have republicans been so unsuccessf unsuccessful? if they're doing great things at the state and local level, which i'll grant you some of that for the sake of the conversation, why can't republicans muster or configure a national message that resonates with the majority of voters? >> i think they can. i think they have. the rubios and the ryans and the cruzes are more connected to where people really live. i'm not saying this president is unattractive and people want to continue watching believe that he could unite, but at every turn, he does not unite. he does divide. we're going backwards in the sense of we're identifying by our color and our gender and our income and our region.
and it's just -- i would argue that the democrats have moved away from the mainstream way more than the republicans have. and i keep coming back to the state argument. they will -- we are coming up on a midterm. we have a number of democrats that have won in states. the majority of them that mitt romney won by double digitses. with the possible exception of north carolina. those democrats that are in the senate, the senate's not done its job. the house republicans have passed a budget. the senate has not passed a budget since obamacare was passed. those senate democrats that were just elected like heidi heitkamp or claire mccaskill, they're not going to support this president's agenda. those up for re-election cannot support it. i continue to believe we're winning on principles because those principles are winning. >> mary, do you support the gun reforms that the president's putting forward? >> mary's optimistic. >> i'm totally optimistic. i have no objection to
background checks. >> i was just curious. >> i have a gun. i don't have an uzi. i have a ladies' gun. i have a .357, and i think people -- and i respect the second amendment. but more importantly, don't be offended, again, i understand that i am of that world, i still have a foot in that world. i still have a home up there. i'm still active in politics, in the rnc reform. but this is a -- it's not what people sit around at their kitchen table and talk about. we still have too few jobs or we're underemployed out here. i love -- you guys keep paying attention, this is very, very important what you're doing. i didn't mean to in any way suggest that it isn't. but i'm optimistic because i see real reform and real growth outside. >> mary, we love you, mary. and thank you for being on our show. and we will all -- we will all be wearing our helmets today. speaking of helmets, mary --
>> go, new orleans! >> go, new orleans! speaking of helmets, ravens or 49ers? >> i'm for the saints. you know what? we love all the teams. let me just say this. we'll have a culinary cook-off because we have three culinary cities. they don't know this yet. we want the mayors of baltimore and san francisco to see if they can match us in culinary epicurian delights. >> that's not going to happen. mary matalin, please say hello to james. we hope to see him very soon. so steve rattner, she's optimist optimistic. it's good to hear. we've lost 5 out of the last 6 elections, and things aren't looking good. but i love optimism. >> yeah, but just one little data point, in order to get those house republicans to go along with the debt ceiling change, they had to promise that paul ryan was going to produce a budget in a week that would balance the budget in ten years with no revenue increases. >> right. >> now, when you see what is going to happen to spending in order to meet those numbers, i'd
like to see her go out there and say, this is the kind of thing the republican party should get behind and run behind because it's going to be ugly. >> richard wolffe, mary matalin is positive. there aren't a lot of republicans right now who are given what's happened. but again, we see shifts in party allegiances fairly quickly. it just does seem like my party is suffering a long-term letdown. to say the least. >> yeah. look, mary has a strong character, as we all know. the truth is that the president actually won and he won pretty big for his ideas. i didn't -- by the way, the president talking about cap and trade in his inaugural. he didn't say how he would address climate change. he said we have to address the impact of it. the question for republicans, i think, is what's the big idea? and it is what you keep advocating, about controlling deficits. you have to look in the short term, at least, of the experience of a conservative
government, in my old country in london, where they're now after several years of trying to deal with deficits and cutting spending, they're looking now at a triple-dip recession. triple-dip recession. that is not a path to political survival. it's certainly not a path to economic survival. >> and i feel the need to underline this, again, because i say it all the time. and i will say it one more time. when i talk about addressing the debt, i'm talking about addressing the long-term debt. i'm talking about addressing medicare, social security, medicaid, defense spending, long-term outlays. and the only reason i'm slowing down here is because i get this an awful lot. people keep talking about austerity and slashing and burning the next year or two. listen, pete peterson and some of the most respected minds on this issue of long-term debt and the crisis that we face will say that it's not the deficits in the short run that kill us as a
country. it's the long-term debt. that's what i'm talking about. and i say time and again, you can have a balanced approach. you can do the responsible thing on medicare, medicaid, social security, defense spending, even though it's not going to be easy, but you can take care of long-term debt while still investing in education, r&d, infrastructure, the sort of things that actually help us grow out of this slow economy over the next two, three, four years. i'm not talking about slashing or burning. the republicans don't have to talk about slashing and burning, but we've all got to talk about, leigh, about taking care of medicare and medicaid, taking care of social security. you know, stop being defenders of the world, policemen of the world. it's just an extraordinarily high defense budget. and we've got to reform the tax code. it's too complex. >> i think everyone agrees that we do need to fix the debt. that that is a problem, and that is a long-term problem. you know, we also have these short-term problems. like if you look at wage growth,
wages are at a record low of gdp, and that's happened pretty recently. real household income has declined. there's urgent problems, as mary mentioned, that many people are feeling. so, you know, steve's point is great. i mean, when this new budget comes out, it's self-defeating because it's going to -- it's really going to -- it's going to make the party look like the party that wants to destroy medicare. and that's not going to win either. >> steve, how long, though, can we ignore -- forget republicans. let's talk about erskine bowles. erskine will be the first to tell you, we just can't keep ignoring the debt. we can't keep doing what the president's been doing for four years saying we'll worry about it next year. we'll worry about medicare next year, we'll worry about medicaid next year, social security, defense spending. we can't keep pushing these things off, can we? how long can we? >> nobody who has taken third grade math thinks we can push this off. this is not complicated.
there's no doubt about it. the question is how and when? so to get to your point, when might be today because we are still in a weak economy, and that's okay, but you've got to get to the long-term problem, but it's got to be balanced, joe. it's got to be revenues, cutting entitlements, dealing with defense spending, a package. right now you've got one group that says i'm willing to do it but only this part. another group says i'm willing but only this part of it. and those two groups are just too far apart for the country's good. >> didn't we already raise ta s taxes? >> we also cut a lot of spending, $2.4 trillion of spending. >> democrats are going to come back and want more tax increases. >> the president has been very clear, he'll cut spending, but you have to have some revenues with it. >> more. he wants to tax more. >> look, the republicans want to cut -- >> it's sort of addictive, isn't it? >> the republicans want to cut $1.2 trillion of spending. and this tax increase that happened at the end of the year that affected 0.4% of americans was $64 billion.
>> you're not going to take care of medicare and medicaid by taxes. >> i agree. >> it's just not even close. >> i agree, but you're not going to take care of it without taxes. >> we'll see. all right. still ahead, a preview of "meet the press" with david gregory and "washington post" columnist eugene robinson. you're watching "morning joe" brewed by starbucks.
i would take office as secretary proud that the senate is in my blood. but equally proud that so, too, is the foreign service. my father's work under presidents both democrat and republican took me and my siblings around the world for personal journey that brought home the sacrifices and the commitment the men and women of
the foreign service make every day on behalf of america. >> i do this because i love the lord. amen. do we get an amen? why we're here. i just do this because i lord -- love the lord. you know why? >> three reasons. >> because i never, ever did a campaign commercial sitting in a pew of my church. >> you are unstoppable, joe. >> that could have been the greatest tv ad ever. >> thank you. >> you need to run again because i need to see those ads again. >> we were talking about taxes. >> oh, okay. >> i'm the democrat. and i want to see the revenue piece dealt with. i don't know how much higher can they go? >> yeah. >> and i hear, steve, we were on the same page. we were just discussing this and all going back and forth here. where do you find this new revenue? do you mess with deductability,
to joe's point, entitlements? >> it's not about the question you were asking steve, though. let's say you make $400,000. and you're in new york, manhattan, you've got a small business. in an urban area. your chances are good if you're in new york or california or illinois or some of these other states. you're paying the government 51%, 52%, 53% when you add in the local and the state. >> how high can it go? >> you are paying the government over 50% of your income. now, i know there are i a lot of people that say you should pay that anyway. that's great. give the money to the government instead of investing it in more jobs, more growth. more hope. where does this money come from, steve? tax man? >> don't put it all on steve. >> i don't mind lowering your taxes as long as you're willing
to have me lower your benefits because the numbers -- ultimately the math has to add up. joe, you are the great deficit hawk of all time. >> i am. >> you believe we should not be incurring this debt, so we've got to do something. >> right. >> what is that something? we have an aging society with a large commitment to social welfare programs that the public does not want to see materially reduced. you may want to, but the polls say the public does not want to see them materially reduced. >> by the way -- >> where is all this money going to come from? >> it's not about what i don't want or want. this is basic arithmetic. the deficit, the debt that is incurred by medicare and medicaid in the out years, it just can't be made up, even in a small part by increasing taxes on the margins anymore. i mean, you could take the tax rate up to 95%, perhaps. >> well, you don't have to go that high. the math has been done. and if you took the tax rate, the federal rate at 40 into the 50s, you could solve the
problem. i'm not here to propose that. >> to the 50s which would mean a lot of americans in new york and california would be paying 75% to 80%. >> i'm not here to propose that. >> you are something. >> i'm here to find out what is the scarborough plan? it does not include raising taxes anymore because they're already too high. >> no, you're wrong. >> okay. >> you're wrong. >> okay. >> i love the buffett plan. i don't want people like you -- >> all right. >> -- and this is what makes me sad, people like you paying, what, 15%, 16%, 17% of your taxes because you've got your hoity-toity lawyers and accountants, steve rattner. i think every american like warren buffett says should pay a minimum 30% taxes. i'm saying in the top brackets. because all the really rich people are now paying 16%, 17%. >> because most of it comes from investment income. mine's all earned income. >> that's fine, but don't hold me to this exact number, $150 billion in revenue over ten years. >> i'm getting yelled at right
now from alex because we've got to bring in a guy who makes more money than all of us combined. i'm talking, of course, of the extraordinarily wealthy, a man who fortunately today is not wearing a top hat or his monacle, david gregory. and columnist and associate editor of "the washington post" and msnbc political analyst, eugene robinson, who is hoping to be outside of the nbc bureau later today when david gregory goes out and throws silver dollars. all over. >> let's go back to talking about harold's tv ads. >> oh, my god, praise the lord. >> it's diversionary. >> that is a good diversion. so david, will you do us a favor and ask paul ryan how he's going to balance the bumgts dget in t years? i think we have to balance the budget if ten years, but that's going to be hard sledding, isn't it? >> it is. his previous budget, as you know, didn't even do it over a 30-year time horizon. he didn't deal with social security in his last budget.
he of course, now, famously dealt with medicare with premium support. and that's the real issue. i spent time on capitol hill this week, joe, and where realms are adamant is they want what you've been talking about. they want some kind of entitlement reform. i don't think that you're going to see ryan go back to premium support, but he's going to try to push as hard as he can. on the flip side of that, the president wants exactly what steve's been talking about, more revenue through tax reform. and i've been told that, in fact, as we get closer to the sequester, these automatic spending cuts, the president is going to lay out just how awful those would be. what the consequences of those would be to push republicans into a corner to try to get more of that revenue because, as you know, mitch mcconnell has said on the senate side, we're done with taxes. we're done with new revenue. now we have to deal with the spending side. so this is still where that fault line is between the white house and republicans right now. and that goes to the point of paul ryan and how difficult, where those spending cuts are
going to come from if he's going to do a ten-year time horizon. >> leigh, this is not about ideology anymore. republicans have raised taxes. at this point, the question is what harold's asking, what a lot of democrats might be asking that have businesses, small businesses or large businesses, how much more can we tax americans that are already paying 50%, 55% in some of the urban areas without really damaging the job creators? >> that's true. no, that's a huge point. and that's the issue at hand here. i mean, gene, let me ask you a question. getting back to paul ryan, you know, his vote on the fiscal cliff deal really distinguished himself from marco rubio. he basically talked a lot about, look, elections have consequences. you know, this is a pragmatic -- we have to govern within the limits that we're told to govern in. how do you think that's going to affect what happens going forward here? >> you mean ryan's decision to go along with the program? >> yeah.
>> i think -- i look at it more through the prism of ryan's political ambitions and where he wants to position himself. going forward as a viable candidate next time around. i think he felt he couldn't continue to -- he couldn't position himself as a perpetual naysayer, and he has to get in the game. and so he did. but i will be fascinated to see what the components of this new budget are because like joe, i have trouble figuring how that's going to add up without new revenue. i think it can't be a pretty thing. and to the extent that it's not pretty, i wonder how it features into his future plans. >> eugene and david, good morning. david, harold ford. real quick. you got ryan on the show over the weekend. and we had richard wolffe on earlier talking about the example in england and great britain where austerity has
produced a triple-dip recession. joe has talked about austerity alone not solving these channel led challenges. i'm interested in exploring with paul, where are the growth elements? he's talking about only cuts. cuts alone won't invigorate and stimulate the economy. what's the republican plan that you've been able to surmise so far, been able to glean so far, what's their plan to actually grow the economy? it can't be cuts alone. >> yeah, i think it's the right question, and i will ask it, harold, because what ryan has talked about is a down payment on a debt crisis, trying to stay a couple steps ahead of where europe is. so that america has influence around the globe and can try to get to a growth posture. look, the president believes very firmly that part of how you get growth is by more investment, by more government spending on infrastructure and the like, particularly in new sectors to try to, you know, get companies more comfortable with the idea of investment. i don't know where that's going to come on the republican side. particularly becauseheir first-line belief is that until
you get some kind of down payment on debt and reduce the size of government, you're not going to have enough confidence on the part of major companies to make those investments. so it's the question of what comes first -- what has to come first, and that's where the battle lines are going to be. >> i think, david, it's steve. i think what the republicans are saying is basically if you liberate them from regulatory burdens, from uncertainty in washington, get government out of their hair generally, that's at least from what i've heard is kind of their growth program. >> sure. yeah, no question about it. you know, one of the other areas of emphasis i know from paul ryan is, you know, the impact of obamacare, which republicans believe is going to have exactly the opposite effect on the economy and on medicare savings that the president says it will. so, you know, that's another area of trying to reduce the scope of that where they think that's part of the regulatory, you know, overhang that they want to try to deal with. >> it will be interesting to see if he kind of draws a fence
around defense spending. this has been a big foreign policy week in washington. and i'm wondering, given what we've learned about al qaeda and its resurgence in north africa and just defense posture globally, david, do you have a sense of what ryan is thinking about defense spending these days? >> no, i don't, particularly with regard to ryan, but i think it's such an important point, gene, because the threat from northern africa alone, listen to secretary clinton's testimony beyond what went into the benghazi attack or what information was missed. the need to fortify our missions and installations and consulates and embassies around the globe. and to the extent that we're going to have an aggressive posture to deal with an al qaeda 3.0 around the globe or failing states, if that comes to pass in afghanistan, there are real concerns that a lot of people have about the united states right now. to say nothing of all of the costs related to our returning soldiers and the sort of care that they're going to need.
>> you know, what's so fascinating, steve rattner, talking about the debate, i'm actually hearing from conservative republicans in the house that they're thinking about letting the sequester cuts go through on defense. it's actually the president of the united states now who's talking about standing in the way of stopping those huge defense cuts. >> but i think the posture of the white house at the moment actually is we're going to let those cuts go through. we're going to let sequester happen. >> really? it may happen. let's hope it does. >> i think they obviously want the republicans to come to them with compromise. right now their position is let them go. >> cut defense spending. david, thanks. we look forward to this weekend, an exclusive interview with paul ryan on "meet the press." eugene gregory, thank you. we'll be reading your column in "the washington post." t.j., what's going on here? okay. we were going to -- we were going to -- okay, fine. coming up, from -- we're going to give harold ford some
problems here. but this is more exciting, actually, from the new nbc drama "deception," we have actor victor garber with us straight ahead on "morning joe." here we go. with the spark miles card from capital one, thor gets great rewards for his small business! your boa! [ garth ] thor's small business earns double miles on every purchase, every day! ahh, the new fabrics. put it on my spark card. ow. [ garth ] why settle for less? the spiked heels are working. wait! [ garth ] great businesses deserve great rewards. [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with double miles
or 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? [ cheers and applause ] what's in your wallet? ♪ ♪ we're lucky, it's not every day you find a companion as loyal as a subaru. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 hours can go by before i realize tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 that i haven't even looked away from my screen. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 that kind of focus... tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 that's what i have when i trade. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and the streetsmart edge trading platform from charles schwab... tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 ...helps me keep an eye on what's really important to me. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 it's packed with tools that help me work my strategies,
tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 spot patterns and find opportunities more easily. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 then, when i'm ready... act decisively. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 i can even access it from the cloud and trade on any computer. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with the exact same tools, the exact same way. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and the reality is, with schwab mobile, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 i can focus on trading anyplace, anytime... tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 ...until i choose to focus on something else. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 all this with no trade minimums. and only $8.95 a trade. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 open an account with a $50,000 deposit, and get 6 months commission-free trades. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call 1-800-711-5509 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and a trading specialist tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 will help you get started today.
[ shouting in japanese ] we work wherever you work. now, that's progressive. call or click today. still ahead, the public editor for "the new york times," margaret sullivan's going to be with us. also author of "the forever war," "the new yorker's" dexter filkins. and next, fresh off his role in the oscar-nominated film "argo," actor victor garber joins us on set to talk about his new drama on nbc. keep it right here on "morning joe." to grow, we have to boost our social media visibility.
more "likes." more tweets. so, beginning today, my son brock and his whole team will be our new senior social media strategists. any questions? since we make radiator valves wouldn't it be better if we just let fedex help us to expand to new markets? hmm gotta admit that's better than a few "likes." i don't have the door code. who's that? he won a contest online to be ceo for the day. how am i supposed to run a business here without an office?! [ male announcer ] fast, reliable deliveries worldwide. fedex. [ male announcer ] fast, reliable deliveries worldwide. meet the 5-passenger ford c-max hybrid. when you're carrying a lot of weight, c-max has a nice little trait, you see, c-max helps you load your freight, with its foot-activated lift gate. but that's not all you'll see, cause c-max also beats prius v, with better mpg. say hi to the all-new 47 combined mpg c-max hybrid.
>> where's this coming from? >> haverstock. it's coming from him. he's threatening. i tried to talk to him and he told me that i did it. did i, dad? >> you're a good man, edward. and in all the years since that poor girl died, you have lived your life beyond reproach. anything else is irrelevant. >> that's not an answer. >> but it's all you're going to get. that was a scene from the new nbc drama "deception." with us now, the co-star of the new drama, victor garber. it's great to have you here. >> thank you. >> young sam stein, he's in prep school now, so young. he was going through your bio and was shocked. 1969, sam, singing on "the ed sullivan show." >> yeah. >> i will do anything for money. if you pay me, i'll do it.
where's mika, by the way? >> south of france. >> i am so angry. i love your show. i watch it every morning. >> and you watch for mika. >> i mean, i'm happy to meet you, of course. >> not really. i understand. >> don't get me wrong, but where is she? >> this is my life. nobody ever -- but you're a huge fan as well. >> i am. >> your favorite moment was his favorite moment as an actor. >> i was just saying, i had seen victor in "art" on broadway in the late '90s, a wonderful, fabulous play, very spare set. >> the great alan alda and ed ward molina and me. and one of the greatest experiences of my life. >> switching to my other favorite role of yours is in "titanic." i'm sorry, i'm a huge "titanic" fan. >> hey, i'm very proud to be a part of that. who knew that it would be what it became. >> but your role, it was the designer of the boat and just in that moment. >> it's my fault, really, isn't it? >> all your fault. >> you sunk the ship. >> it is fascinating, though.
your career, you talk about singing "ed sullivan show," but you spent so much time on broadway. you also, of course, starred in a lot of great movies. you talk about "argo." but also, in the great nora ephron, "sleepless in seattle." how remarkable is she? but now to tv. 20 years ago most broadway actors and movie actors might have turned their nose up at tv. >> they were lying. they were desperate to do it. >> it's where the action is now. that's where some of the best writing is. this actually looks like one of the best nbc shows in a long time. >> thank you. "deception," monday nights at 10:00. how about that? >> monday at 10:00. it's a prime spot. >> it's so much fun to be a part of this show. when i first read the script, it was a page-turner. it's kind of a classic whodunit with intrigue and sex, not for me, but for the young, pretty people. it's really smart, really smart.
and it's really entertaining, you know. i highly recommend it. >> there's just something about the rich, isn't there? when the rich get in trouble, everybody loves watching their lives fall lives fall apart. >> and also, you know, it's so interesting, and you deal with this all the time, but people who feel justified to behave in a way because they think it's the right thing to do. you know, in politics it happens, and certainly in drama. that's what makes drama so intriguing. because people feel justified. they can do whatever they think -- >> well, they believe they live by a separate set of rules. >> completely. >> as many people do in the real world. >> which sam stein operates that way, but he doesn't have the money. >> i've heard that about you, and i want to observe you for my character. >> yeah, study me, become me. method acting. so let's talk about the debt ceiling. >> no, because that's why i'm here. >> how do you adjust, professionally, how do you adjust to doing broadway movies and tv. are there differences in the type of acting that you try to do? >> you know, for me, it's always about the material.
that's what attracts me. if it's on the written page and makes sense and i can relate to it, i want to do it. and, you know, and i think acting is acting. it's always about being truthful. so on the stage, it requires a different kind of energy and you're playing to a big house. in film, the camera can be right there. so it also gives you the option to really be more internal. but it's -- i really believe it all comes from the same place, which is, do you believe what i'm saying? >> i'm going to ask you another question, because, "argo," critically a success. award winning, obviously, for the golden globes. snubbed a bit by the academy. is there anything you want to get off your chest? >> you know, here's the deal, it was disappointing and kind of surprising, but really, the movie is so appreciated and so loved and ben has been rewarded, you know, and will continue to be rewarded, that it's -- it doesn't really resonate all that much. i think that first day it did. >> you're being diplomatic. >> well, sure, but what am i
going to say? it's like, honestly, awards, i've never quite -- like, how do you say what is the best of anything? >> come on? >> then the golden globes were a good moment. >> unless you win -- >> and then it's the best. the golden globes, i was there, it was so much fun, and to see ben's face, and it was thrilling. it's, you know, i'm so proud to be a part of that movie. >> so tell us a little bit more about deception. talk about who wow york with. >> meagan good is this incredible actress, beautiful young woman who plays a girl who grew up in our house and she's undercover and is trying to figure out if my daughter was a murder or a drug overdose. and she really, you know, we lucked out, because she's the star of the show, really, and that can go either way, you know? and she's remarkably gifted and so sweet to work with and wonderful. so i love her and i love the cast. tate donovan, in that clip, who
was in "argo," plays my son, which is hard to believe, i know. we're pushing it. >> come on? seriously. >> he's my oldest son. i was very young. i know. >> a 15-year-old -- >> rich people, they do it younger. >> they live by different rules, sam, that's what i keep trying to tell you. well, victor, thank you for being with us. we want you to come back. >> and mika will be here, right? >> when you come back, we'll make sure mika's here. >> monday at 10:00. so "deception" airs monday at 10:00 p.m. eastern/9:00 p.m. central. johnny carson always said, central time is the most important time, right here on nbc. it's also the most important, because that's pensacola, florida. >> i had no idea. >> central time zone. >> so much easier to watch things like "deception." thank you so much! >> thank you. >> when we come back, we've got acclaimed war correspondent,
dexter filkins here, and he'll give us his thoughts on the move by the pentagon to allow female troops in combat. we'll be right back. [ dad ] find it? ya. alright, another one just like that. right in the old bucket. good toss! see that's much better! that was good. you had your shoulder pointed, you kept your eyes on your target. let's do it again -- watch me. just like that one... [ male announcer ] the durability of the volkswagen passat. pass down something he will be grateful for. good arm. that's the power of german engineering. ♪ back to you. ♪ ...so as you can see, geico's customer satisfaction is at 97%. mmmm tasty. and cut! very good. people are always asking me how we make these geico adverts.
so we're taking you behind the scenes. this coffee cup, for example, is computer animated. it's not real. geico's customer satisfaction is quite real though. this computer-animated coffee tastes dreadful. geico. 15 minutes could save you 15 % or more on car insurance. someone get me a latte will ya, please?
i i had pain in my abdomen...g. it just wouldn't go away. i was spotting, but i had already gone through menopause. these symptoms may be nothing... but they could be early warning signs of a gynecologic cancer, such as cervical, ovarian, or uterine cancer. feeling bloated for no reason. that's what i remember. seeing my doctor probably saved my life. warning signs are not the same for everyone. if you think something's wrong... see your doctor. ask about gynecologic cancer. and get the inside knowledge.
hey, looking ahead to monday, very excited about this. we've got a columnist, a "new york times" columnist, and guys, he won a grammy once, right? for the spoken word? an emmy? oh, wait, nobel prize for economics. paul krugman is going to be here, and he's going to say -- he's going to finally admit that the united states has a spending problem. i said it was a spending problem. he says we're not spending enough money. that's going to be a great conversation. and also, coming up next, a guy who has not won a nobel prize for anything, manti te'o. he's standing by his story and why shouldn't he? i mean, who hasn't been in a relationship for three years with someone they've never met? more "morning joe" in a moment. [ male announcer ] you are a business pro.
executor of efficiency. you can spot an amateur from a mile away... while going shoeless and metal-free in seconds. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle...and go. you can even take a full-size or above, and still pay the mid-size price. now this...will work. [ male announcer ] just like you, business pro. just like you. go national. go like a pro. just like you. is bigger than we think ... sometimelike the flu.fer from with aches, fever and chills- the flu's a really big deal. so why treat it like it's a little cold?
there's something that works differently than over-the-counter remedies. prescription tamiflu attacks the flu virus at its source. so don't wait. call your doctor right away. tamiflu is prescription medicine for treating the flu in adults and children one year and older whose flu symptoms started within the last two days. before taking tamiflu tell your doctor if you're pregnant, nursing. have serious health conditions, or take other medicines. if you develop an allergic reaction, a severe rash, or signs of unusual behavior, stop taking tamiflu and call your doctor immediately. children and adolescents in particular may be at an increased risk of seizures, confusion or abnormal behavior. the most common side effects are mild to moderate nausea and vomiting. the flu comes on fast, so ask your doctor about tamiflu. prescription for flu.
you attempted a few times to talk with her through face time and you would see, basically, what, a black box, and she would say to you, i can see you, i don't know why you can't see me. >> correct. >> didn't you think that was a little weird? >> to be honest, no. >> no? >> i didn't. >> are you that technologically challenged? i am, but someone your age shouldn't be, right? >> yeah, i saw a black screen, and she said, i can see you and can i see me, you should be able to see me. i was like, i don't know what's wrong with your camera. >> hi, i'm just letting you know
i got here and i'm getting ready for my first session and i just wanted to call you and keep you mosted. i miss you, i love you, bye. good morning, it's 8:00 a.m. on the west coaeast coast, 5 a.e west coast. richard wolffe and kelly o'donnell. come on, man. come on, what's going on here? that story is about as clunky and awkward as my red sweater this morning. >> that is awkward. >> your sweater does look good. >> the sweater looks okay. >> that is strange stuff. let me ask you this. can i just ask you an innocent question? i'm just a babe in the woods. i just wondered in off the streets. i just got a question i don't understand. as denzel washington said in philadelphia, talk to me like i'm a fourth grader. explain it to me.
why do you have a guy, who's like the number one or number two college prospect in america, he could have any girl, not only on the notre dame campus, but probably on any campus in america. >> fair to say. >> is that fair to say? >> very. >> is that as obvious as a red sweater on my -- >> i'm not that bright, but that's pretty fair to say. >> we've all been to major college. these guys are adored, they are worshiped. why would a dude decide to date, in quote marks, somebody that he didn't see for two years, and it ended up that the dude, that the lady was actually a dude on the other side -- it doesn't make sense to me, harold! explain it to me. i don't understand. >> i'll be 43 this year. i don't understand all of the online dating, and i've never participated in anything like that, but i can't imagine -- >> that's not what anthony says, but go ahead.
you guys had some good times in the democratic club. go ahead, harold. >> i can't imagine she would go 2 1/2, 3 years without seeing your girlfriend. >> that's just not the story, though. let's get the facts straight. >> that's the element of the story. >> so they met, allegedly, they met three years ago, but they only started dating about six or eight months ago. >> but they never met. >> they never met. >> three years ago. but starting. >> but i couldn't have started dating had i not met the person. >> that's a little bizarre. >> take the absurdity of it all. why did he do it? >> that's why i'm asking you. could you please explain to everybody why he did it? i would like to hear your explanation. >> i think the guy, the wiring maybe isn't all -- >> there's a lone manti te'o truther on this panel. i can offer an explanation. he was told this person was like suffering horrific events, a car crash, leukemia, whatever it was, and basically on her death bed, he got emotionally attached to this person, even if it happened online.
i'm trying here. >> hundreds of hours of phone calls? >> i'm trying. >> that's a level of sensitivity from sam i didn't know we had. >> come on! >> i'm impressed! >> kelly! >> women are always trying to find a terrific man, and to think we only need to go online. >> kelly o., do you buy this, that one of the best football players in america, at one of the biggest, most. revered universities network would decide not to date human beings and instead for two, three years hang outon line? >> i think we've redefined dating. i'm kind of blown away by that myself. i wish him well. i think this is probably terribly embarrassing, and i would think that ladies who meet him in the future will certainly at least want to say hello in
person. i expect people will be online or using a web cam or any of that for a long time to come. it's one of those awkward things about this world we live in, where people feel a sense of intimacy. >> does this damage his draft stock? how much financial -- >> actually, to be honest, i'm just saying this, because i went to alabama, the alabama crimson tide damage. they were saying after the game, he was a little child out there. he looked lost, as if he were sorting through a three-year twitter feed. he had a bad couple of weeks. >> what's actually worse is the fact that the guy knew it was a hoax. and actually, this is what's more disturbing, steve, that notre dame knew it was a hoax. and they let him go out and continue. now, what he said was -- what he said was, you know, i couldn't just change my story. but if you're notre dame, this
is very easy to take care of, especially when you're dealing with sports reporters. with that interview man. here's the deal, he doesn't want to talk about his girlfriend. you know what, it's personal to him, and her imaginary family gets really hurt when he talks about his imaginary girlfriend. this would have been so easy to avoid. and so, okay, whatever, i think kelly's right, it's a sensitive, personal thing he's dealing wi h with, but notre dame, they've got much more to speak to. they let this lie continue and they knew it was a lie. >> for obvious commercial reasons. >> for obvious commercial reasons. notre dame is the one that offers -- that really needs to explain what's going on here. how do they let that happen? >> but, joe, what women really want to know is the person who was playing his girlfriend is apparently a guy. and to think that a guy would stay on the phone with you for three or four hours a night, it's something women have been looking for for a long time.
>> exactly, it's just a total lie. guys don't do things like that. >> they have the voice mail records. >> all right, i'm done. i'm trying my best. >> we'll -- hey, so, kelly, what's going on with panetta's order and the president and everybody with women in combat. are you hearing any dissent from the hill? >> reporter: really, no. what we are hearing is just the question of, can it be done in a way that will be ensure that there's still the kind of unit cohesion and efficiency, will the physical standards in certain kinds of units be maintained? but i think there's been a sense for a long time from members, especially those on the armed services committee, who look at these issues up close, that the time has come, and that it's not a battle they're going to fight or they don't even see really a reason to. i think in part knowing that if they put trust in the commanders to do it in a way that makes sense and allows for this sort of career advancement, that women in the military have not
been able to have access to because they weren't in these kinds of jobs, i think that there's pretty smooth sailing for this. >> but richard, there will be, obviously, limits, correct, for certain assignments that women can do, based on physical ability? >> well, i think there are physical limits for everyone in a combat position. is i don't think that's particularly different. >> if i can interrupt you, it is. there's a reason why there are no women in the nfl. there's a reason why there's no women in major league baseball. there's a reason why there are no women in, you know, most male-centered professional sports. there is a difference, physically, between men and women. can we say that in 2013? >> but you cannot assume that every man is ready and capable. >> no one -- i don't assume that. i only want men that can meet
the standards. i think this is very important, richard, because i just, i hope the pentagon thinks through this in a way that doesn't put american lives at risk, because the one thing that keeps men in combat right now, fighting, as i've heard my entire life, from veterans who have been there, it's not the flag. it's not the great idea of american democracy. it's your buddy next to you. and they leave no man. and if women are in combat, they will leave no woman behind. and the question is, will that in any way jeopardize the safety of men and weapon that are going to be fighting now in the future? >> yeah, joe, i just think we've moved beyond that, right? >> i hope not. i hope not, richard. we're talking about people's safety. move beyond what? >> yeah. the point is, everyone has to pass physical tests. just because you're a man doesn't mean to say that the physical tests are any different.
and they won't be any different for a woman either. you have to have extreme levels of physical capability to be in a combat zone, given the nature and the professionalism. and yes, the spirit of the american military. all i'm saying is, we've moved beyond the idea that somehow, that spirit is confined just to men. the idea that you would leave no man behind is also something that women, in these combat zones, also exhibit. and that's why people are comfortable with. >> exactly. but, steve, there is a difference, there is a difference, physically, for the most part, in what men are able to accomplish and what women are able to accomplish out on a battle field, on a football field, around a track. again, this is not open. >> just going back to your point -- >> and by the way, i just want to be very clear, because i'm sure people are freaking out right now. i'm not saying i don't want women in combat. women can be in combat, but i'll be damned -- i mean, if we find
out that the pentagon is lowering standards for politically correct reasons, then you know what, then the blood of the dead americans in future battles will be on their hands. that's what we've got to make sure doesn't happen. >> look, i'm not even sure it's lowering standards. if you take a 120-pound woman who passes every test, she's incredibly physically fit. >> in better shape than me. >> you send her out there with you, you get hit with a bullet somewhere, at your 200 -- >> no, i'm 230 pounds. let's use mika, who's probably about 125, 130 pounds -- >> and incredibly fit. >> much better shape than me. >> and you guys are out on the battle field, and you get hit, how does she drag you back. >> whereas if she gets hit, i can throw her up on my shoulder and we can keep running forward. this is a very important conversation that i'm very surprised that we haven't heard discussed a lot more. >> i understand the hypothetical you guys are putting out there and i guess that makes sense as
a concern, but to richard's point, what they're not saying is that every woman should be allowed into combat. what they're saying is that the restrictions on women in combat should be lifted. so they're not going to put someone, no offense to mika, who's not here, like mika necessarily out there if she can't lift someone like joe. they're going to put someone who can handle the responsibilities. >> can i be really honest with you? i have not met a lot of women in my lifetime who can lift me or guys who are 6'4" and 230 pounds. >> then for the time being, there aren't going to be a lot of women in combat. because there were a description that was discriminatory for a small part of women. now, the execution of the new policy matters. and if it's poorly executed, of course it will be upsetting. but it's a valid point that they lifted that restriction. >> i totally agree with you. and the other point i would make
on your side that the nature of warfare has changed, it's no longer about 23550-pound guys - >> we don't have forces in bayonets. >> there's a lot of stuff i think women can do in mechanicized vehicles and other things that are in the combat zones, that are in the front lines that don't involve having to pull 240-pound guys. >> so i hope this is done in a way that deals more with combat readiness than it does effectiveness. i am not suggesting, for a second, that women aren't as capable as leading or as running or i think in some ways, more capable of leading and running, not just a unit, but the air force, the marines. i've got no problem with women generals and admirables. again, i just want to make sure, harold ford, that this is tailored as tightly as possible to what is best for the armed
forces. and not what's best for some political agenda in washington, d.c. >> it's my understanding, and i hope everybody takes what you're staying in the vein in which you're expressing it, which is how do you ensure we're not compromising everything. and i think that's a legitimate question. if you look at the way this was voted upon, i think all of the joint chiefs, it was a unanimous vote with all those generals. so i would imagine all these things are considered, and perhaps as this decision is elaborated upon, these details will come out even more, so there's a greater understanding. >> really quickly, before we go to break, we've got something, i'll talk to richard on the other side of the break on, a new "washington post"/abc news poll is showing now that the majority of americans have a favorable view of president obama's gun reform proposal. and while the gun lobby has come out against the president's entire plan, the numbers are pretty stark. 53% are favorable, 41% unfavorable. more interesting as you go into the poll, the favorables are much more intense than the
unfavorables. which means that we've heard, for some time, richard wolffe, that, you know, the gun owners are so intense, and they're the ones that are going to always make phone calls and the ones that are going to always be engaged. and in this poll, and i'm sure we're going to see it in other polls, a majority of americans are more intense about passing some sane gun regulation than are those small groups of people that are going to fight the political death over assault weapons and being able to have high-capacity magazines. >> and a couple of things. first of all, if you break down the individual proposal, the support is even higher, right? universal background checks, you get way higher than 50%. and those numbers really reflect the president's own favorability right now. the other part of it is that the grassroots that we're talking about have not been organized to
date, and that's where you're seeing the impacts of people like moveon.org or bloomberg's money, or even if it comes to pass, the obama campaign's, you know, evolved state, if they can get their act together, then they can be a counterweight to the very successful, very organized nature of the nra's grassroots operation. but this is favorable territory, if they can thread the needle for people like joe manchin. coming up next, we've got the public editor at "the new york times," margaret sullivan. that's going to be fun. we're going to get her take on the state of journalism in america, including coverage of the manti te'o story. also, "the new yorker's" dexter filkins on the pentagon's decision to allow women to serve in combat. first, here's bill karnins with a check on the forecast. >> we bring you these pictures from chicago. you've dealt with a little bit of snow from your morning rush how. the roads look pretty cold.
it is so cold, this is a light, fluffy snow, it's literally blowing off the roads. the sidewalks probably a different issue. and there will be a similar scene in all of the ohio valley and much of the mid-atlantic, as we go throughout your afternoon. currently, the snow showing up in white, a little bit heavier intensity just north of chicago, also snowing now from indianapolis along interstate 70 into the dayton area. again, but it's so cold, it's just a light, fluffy snow, it's blowing all over. again, that snow, notice the progression now through ohio. eventually, it's going to be falling here in pennsylvania and west virginia during the day. the pink on the bottom of that, that's probably the biggest concern. freezing rain as we go throughout the afternoon. much of areas in the mountains and tennessee and north georgia, those are the areas of concern. your forecast today, obviously, the snow, also raining this morning in los angeles, drive carefully, all the way down to san diego. and then the weekend, we start to warm it up a little bit in the great lakes and new england. no big storms. just be dealing with some showers on the west coast. and we get a nice little warm-up from many areas of eastern half of the country, but then it looks like another shot of arctic air the middle of next
week. nothing we'll be looking forward to. you're watch "morning joe," shot of the ice rink in new york city, plenty frozen. have a great weekend. you're watching "morning joe," brewed by starbucks. living with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis means living with pain. it could also mean living with joint damage. humira, adalimumab, can help treat more than just the pain. for many adults, humira is clinically proven to help relieve pain and stop further joint damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections,
including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal events, such as infections, lymphoma, or other types of cancer, have happened. blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure have occurred. before starting humira, your doctor should test you for tb. ask your doctor if you live in or have been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. tell your doctor if you have had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections or have symptoms such as fever, fatigue, cough, or sores. you should not start humira if you have any kind of infection. ask your rheumatologist about humira, to help relieve your pain and stop further joint damage.
>> the sniper in basketball. >> and sam stein, the sniper. >> i hear he's got a nice shot. >> does he really? >> three on three, jcc league. we're pretty good! slash, we lose every game. >> sam, you just don't know how old you sound right now, for a boy in prep school. >> in a recent post in "the new york times," margaret wrote about reporters getting personal, in part, "does objectivity matter? is the idea of impartiality matter preserving? let's acknowledge up-front that it's a two-headed beast, partly about the personal biases that reporters may bring into their work, and partly about the middle-ground reporting that muddies the truth in the name of fairness." that's actually one of the great challenges for a reporter, trying to find out how much weight to give to both sides, and sometimes one story doesn't require two equal parts.
>> that's right. i mean, one of the things i've written about is false balance, where you sort of treat everything as equal, even though there's an established truth there that ought to be just stated. but a lot of times, medias and newspapers particularly don't like to do that. >> how are you enjoying your job so far? >> it's a very interesting gig. >> i bet it's a very interesting gig! >> and i'm situated right in the newsroom, so i'm kind of like an embedded reporter. >> and they've got to talk to you, too, don't they? >> there's no rule about that. but the people at "the times," they've been very -- they're used to having a public editor, they understand how it works. so everyone's been very courteous and nice. >> now, they had daniel there -- >> dan oakron was the first. about ten, well, nine years ago. it came about after the whole jayson blair scandal. >> i think it's fascinating, too, as a conservative that reeds a newspaper every day, and always have read the newspaper, there are certain biases that i know are built in. not so much for any other
reason, than geography and, but i always see the public editor as a great opportunity, to be a leveling wind and i think it's worked pretty darn well over the past decade, don't you? >> there have been some highlights and i think that, you know, lots of times, a couple of times, the public editor has made pretty strong statements about just what you're talking about. dan oakron made a famous column, that the headline basically said, is "the times" a liberal newspaper, and answered it, something like, of course it is. >> of course it is. >> and you know, it was -- it was very notable at the time. >> like all great newspapers, though, the editorial page reflects the town. >> it does. >> so what are the challenges, though, and do you think the challenges in that area are as great as they were, say, ten years ago? because i see guys like jeff zeleny, mark leibovich, these guys, i couldn't tell you how they vote in elections. it seems the further we move away from the '60s and the '70s
and what came out of that, the more we find guys like zeleny and leibovich that don't seem to have an agenda. >> i think most of the people who write for the times, you wouldn't know who they voted for. but i think the really tough thing right now is that everybody goes out on to social media, and so you're on twitter and you're on facebook and you're exposing kind of who you are, and you want to be doing that, because you're building your own brand and "the times" is encouraging it, but where do you draw the line? >> how dangerous is that? twitter, man! >> it's -- >> a nightmare. >> unfiltered. and some people need to be filtered. twitter proves some people need to be filtered. >> how much of your day is just looking at people's twitter feeds, and being like, oh, why! oversharing! >> i don't stalk people on twitter too much, but if someone brings it to my attention, i'll take a look. >> when you say that the personal biases that reporters may bring into their work, you touched on the beginning, that the middle ground reporting muddies the truth, there are some established facts, what do you mean? what are some of the examples,
not just at "the times," but across the board you see. >> it comes up in all sorts of things, comes up in politics. >> joe and i have had stuff written about us. we sometimes think there are biases. >> and i don't think so much about personalities -- >> harold, are you still going back to that story when you were thinking about running for the senate? >> i was thinking about the story they wrote about you. >> oh, that! >> that story. >> are we going to talk about that? >> i don't know what story. >> no idea. >> got a little awkward on the set, geez! >> no, it didn't. >> let's go back to what they call you on the basketball court. >> i think harold was making it up. but i think you wrote something about the nate virtuite silver . >> i did. >> don't place bets with guys on tv who are goading you into placing bets. it's a good rule. >> you know, it probably was a little bit blown out of proportion, now that i have a little bit of distance to it. >> yeah -- >> but nate was a total gentleman, i have to say. even though i took a little shot at him, he was very gracious. >> he really was. and, you know, that's also a
great challenge too. because nate silver, i will tell you, and i'm sure you hear it a lot, most people outside "the new york times," especially print men and women are shocked that nate silver is given the position he's given at "the new york times," but nate drives the conversation so much, he drove web traffic. i said at the time, there were like neurotic liberals who when they were afraid that, you know, obama was going to lose, they'd like re -- he's a dream for the times commercially. i guess the challenge for you is how do you balance it with the journalism. >> i think it's actually worked well for nate and for the times. but there's no question that he's brought a lot of traffic, he's brought a whole new group of people, you know, a younger demographic into "the times" readership. and once you're there on the site, maybe you'll check out some other things. >> i'll tell you, really, he has done that. >> but it's funny to me, because nate silver sort of embodies the first topic we were talking about, which is, do you give balance to both sides, or do you
look at things statistically and objectively and say, okay, this is where the outcome is. and i think this election result sort of vindicated the type of thing that nate was doing. he was right, he was looking at numbers while other people were saying, well, maybe the poll's off here, we should give this side more credence. >> actually, what nate was doing, he was looking at the right polls. because what nate has is a spreadsheet. >> exactly. >> everyone has that data. >> but, it's what information do you put into that spreadsheet. at the end, he was right. >> he picked the right polls to follow. >> i'll tell you, i talked with him a couple of weeks before the election, and he was nervous about how it was -- i mean, election night was a big night for him and it went very, very well. >> yeah. >> i wanted to ask you, what are some of the debates where you think there is too much false equivalency. what do you think some of the topics that are given too much -- >> one of the topics that's come up a lot is around climate change, because, you know, there are different opinions about this. but there's also a recognition, more and more, that there is some factual stuff that you can just simply say as being true and you don't always have to
say, but, on the other side, you know, there's the outliers who think this. that's one place where it really has arisen. >> you've written recently about "the times" getting duped, manti te'o, in fact, there's a quote from a sports editor who channeled ronald reagan, "trust by verify." how did we all get suckered into a story that sounded too good to be true. >> you know, i think there were a lot of opportunities along the way to say, really? and, you know, even though "the times" did not write a big story about manti te'o and his girlfriend, i mean, it was very glancing, i still think there were times when they could have said, let's check, did she go to stanford? that check never happened. >> and i remember the first time i saw the story in december. i was sitting there on the couch watching with my wife, and i started tearing up, he lost his grandmother and his girlfriend? and then you find out he didn't
go to the funeral. i guess somebody should have said, where was the funeral? who was there? let's talk to her parents. but nobody -- >> well, there's a category of journalism called, too good to check. >> exactly. i always loved that, when you ask a reporter on the campaign trail, is that really true? and they go, i don't know. but let's run it -- >> september 12th until december 6th, no one -- and every weekend, he talked about it after the game. >> that's right, that's right. >> amazing. >> margaret, will you come back? >> i would love to. >> we would love to have you here and love to have some more time to talk to you. >> great. >> all right, margaret sullivan, thank you so much. coming up next, we've got "the new yorker's" dexter filkins. he escaped from "the new york times." they shouldn't have let him go. we're going to talk to dexter about afghanistan, iran, and women in combat when we return on "morning joe." tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 when i'm trading, i'm totally focused.
tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and the streetsmart edge trading platform from charles schwab... tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 gives me tools that help me find opportunities more easily. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 i can even access it from the cloud and trade on any computer. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and with schwab mobile, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 i can focus on trading anyplace, anytime. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 until i choose to focus on something else. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 all this with no trade minimums. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and only $8.95 a trade. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 open an account with a $50,000 deposit, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and get 6 months commission-free trades. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call 1-866-884-2828. the blissful pause. just before that rich sweetness touches your lips. the delightful discovery.
the mid-sweetening realization that you have the house all to yourself. well, almost. the sweet reward. making a delicious choice that's also a smart choice. splenda® no calorie sweetener. with the original sugar-like taste you love and trust. splenda® makes the moment yours™. [ male announcer ] when it comes to the financial obstacles military families face, we understand. our financial advice is geared specifically to current and former military members and their families. [ laughs ] dad! dad! [ applause ] [ male announcer ] life brings obstacles. usaa brings retirement advice. call or visit us online. we're ready to help. learn more with our free usaa retirement guide. call 877-242-usaa.
but everyone is entitled to a chance. >> i think it's the right thing to do. i support it. i just wanted us all to make sure that the standards, particularly the physical standards are met, so that the combat efficiency of the units are not degraded, but it's time to do that. the women have proven their enormous contributions they've made in iraq and afghanistan. >> with us now, acclaimed writer for the new yorker, dexter filkins, and a commentary on the pentagon's decision to allow women in combat, dexter writes in part, "a dozen years ago, it would have been remarkable for american women to be shooting people and losing their eyes and legs in war. not anymore. in the 12 years since the wars in iraq and afghanistan began, the military has been steadily pushing women into jobs that no one could call non-combat without stripping the phrase of its meaning. nowadays, women fly apache
helicopters, giant, terrifying killing machines armed with rockets and cannon, members of what the military calls female engagement teams venture into remote afghan villages, nearly all of which are contested by the taliban, to talk to afghan women because of the cultural barriers that stand in the way of american men. what's non-combat about those jobs?" and dexter, in your piece, that's one of the distinctions you go after immediately. who is to say what these women have already been doing is noncombat? >> right. right. i mean, 150 women have already been killed, 800 wounded, i think. they've been fighting for a long time. you know, god knows i've been in firefights with women before where they picked up their guns and started shooting back. so in that sense, it's not new. it's not. >> so this isn't any great leap? >> well, it is. now if a woman gets in a firefight, most of the time,
it's incidental, you know, she was driving a fuel truck that came under attack, or she was driving a medevac helicopter that took fire. but this is, if you want to join the infantry, and you can do the -- you know, make the grade, then you get to go out. you get to go out and -- to fight. >> so we were -- john mccain was talking about that it was the right thing to do. i stated really my view, it's the right thing to do, as long as the standards are maintained. and i go back to one of the greatest pieces, i think, written about the iraq war, when you were talking about those marines going down the stairwell, one by one, getting shot, and another one going down, getting shot, and another going down, and this continued until they got to their buddies and were able to drag them to safety. any concerns with all the combat that you've seen that women put into certain circumstances might not be physically up to doing
the same job that those marines did? >> i think there are probably, you know, plenty of women probably can't make the greade, probably can't do it. but probably plenty of men can't either. if you're a guy and sign up for the infantry, or take the extreme case, and say, i want to be in the special forces, most of them can't make it, because, you know, they can't do it. so i think as long as they don't lower the bar -- >> right. >> as long as you've still got to -- if you can do a 12-mile hike and do the push-ups and load an artillery shell into a tank barrel, as long as you can do it and they don't drop the standards, then why not. >> that's my position, exactly. lee? >> your column, dexter, mentions this fascinating village in sri lanka, where the women are trained fighters, not only trained fighters, but the most vicious kind of fighters. they kill people with machetes. talk about that a little bit. and the reason why was not
because their leader was a feminist, you say, but it was because they ran out of men. all the men died fighting, and the result was these fierce women fighters, and i thought it was such a fascinating piece of your story. >> they were amazing. that was in sri lanka in the year 2000. yeah, i hung out with these female fighters, the tigers, the tamil tigers, and they were amazing. they were ruthless. they had just gone into a village, they had hacked to death everyone in the village. every woman wore from her neck, like a little piece of jewelry, a vial of cyanide, so if they were taken hostage, they could kill themselves. they did suicide bombings. yeah, they do it all there. >> you said they were strong, fit, and humorless. >> yeah. yeah, they really were. i tried to joke around with them a little bit. >> didn't go so well? >> and they were -- yeah, they weren't playing. >> one of the interesting things
in your piece, you say there's really no distinction any later in battle between combat and noncombat roles. if you're driving a fuel truck or manning a helicopter, you're taking enemy fire buff the unconventional nature of this warfare. so in fact, we've had this women in combat roles, we're just now acknowledging it in a lot of ways. i took that from the piece as well. >> well, you know, think of world war ii. it's like a big army, everyone has a uniform versus another big army, everybody has a uniform. you know, war's not like that anymore. so if you're driving a fuel truck or you're flying a helicopter or, you know, you're driving a truck delivering ice cream to a military base, you can come under attack just as easily as anybody else. so that's why you have these extraordinary number of women who have been killed and wounded over the last ten years. >> and that will go up. i mean, that's going to go up. >> absolutely. >> you've been going to afghanistan now for almost 20 years. is it time for america to leave? >> boy, i don't know. i think -- i'm worried about what happens when we do.
we're leaving, you know? we ended next year, i think we're gone for the most part. i think president obama's made that pretty clear. doesn't look like we're going to stay there in any great numbers. maybe 5,000 troops. that's not a lot. that's not a lot to really make a difference. and so, what have we built that can stand on its own? we're going to find out. >> not a lot? >> i think it's a pretty rickety thing. you know, maybe we'll all be surprised and it will sort of hold its own. >> you spent four years in baghdad, you have been in afghanistan much longer than that. by the way, congratulations on your assignment, "the new yorker". >> thank you. thank you. >> in new york. but you've been around combat troops over the past decade, as much or more than anybody outside the military. can our men and women sustain
another war against iran, which some people are talking about as a possible, a third war in the decade? >> wow. well, i'll put it this way, who knows if we're going to war with iran, but i think if we, if that came, if war comes, i would be amazed if we put troops on the ground there. i mean, i think we -- you know, if it came to this, we'd do it from the air and we'd do it from the sea, but, you know, iran's a real country. you know, there's 70 million people there. it's big. that's a totally different universe. and i would be amazed if we went down that road. >> yeah. all right, dexter. let's hope we don't. "the new yorker's" dexter filkins, thanks so much. we appreciate it, as always. great to see you. >> thank you. business before the bell is coming up next.
meet the 5-passenger ford c-max hybrid. when you're carrying a lot of weight, c-max has a nice little trait, you see, c-max helps you load your freight, with its foot-activated lift gate. but that's not all you'll see, cause c-max also beats prius v, with better mpg. say hi to the all-new 47 combined mpg c-max hybrid.
omnipotent of opportunity. you know how to mix business... with business. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle. and go. you can even take a full-size or above. and still pay the mid-size price. i could get used to this. [ male announcer ] yes, you could business pro. yes, you could. go national. go like a pro.
with us now, for business before the bell, cnbc's michelle caruso-cabrera. michelle, i see your prep school guy over at cnbc, andrew ross sorkin. he's over in davos, wearing furry hats and the like. what's going on over there and why aren't we ever invited to that party? >> davos is this huge confab of the leading likes of finance and government officials that go to switzerland once a year to get together try to solve the problems of the world and we send maria bartiromo every year, andrew has traveled there for the new york times, our chief economics reporter there as well. it's an exciting event. for journalists, it's like shooting a fish in a barrel, because they're all right there.
you're walking down the hall, and there's bill gates, there's warren buffett. >> and there's andrew in a very, very funny hat. but if the leading minds of the world are there, i guess, michelle, the question is, why aren't any of us invited? why are we here, is the question? >> it doesn't make any sense to me. >> any news coming out of davos this year? >> yeah, george soros had a big impact on the currency markets, where we talked about what is going on in japan. japan is going to embark on something similar to what ben bernanke has been doing here in the united states, but something incredible aggressive, because they are trying to end what is nearly 20 years of deflation. we worry here about inflation, they've been fighting deflation, which is almost worse. because, think about it. why would you buy that house if you think next week it's going to be cheaper? and why would you buy that car if you think next week, it's going to be cheaper. and you know what happens, everybody stops buying stuff. and the problem with deflation is, we really don't know what to do about it. inflation's easy. you raise interstate rates, that
will kill it. but inflation, you'll have currencies weakening all over the world at the same time, that can hurt germany. by the way, market, gangbusters. we're talking about maybe all-time highs within sight for the dow and the s&p, five-year highs right now. >> really? so now would be the time for a guy like me to start investing, right? >> no. >> it's at an all-time high. >> buy high, sell low. >> that's what everybody does. >> absolutely, joe. >> i'll give you a call, harold. all right, michelle, thank you so much. we greatly appreciate it. looking ahead to monday, this is going to be a lot of fun. paul krugman's going to be back and he's going to be talking about our spending problem. he thinks we need to spend more money to get out of the slow growth that we're experiencing right now. can't wait for that conversation. up next, though, the best of late night. ♪
[ male announcer ] how do you make 70,000 trades a second... ♪ reach one customer at a time? ♪ or help doctors turn billions of bytes of shared information... ♪ into a fifth anniversary of remission? ♪ whatever your business challenge, dell has the technology and services to help you solve it. every human being is unique. and there is one store that recognizes it. the sleep number store. the only place in the world you'll find the
extraordinarily comfortable sleep number experience. an exclusive collection of innovations that totally individualizes your sleep. pillows that adjust for cradling comfort. temperature-balancing bedding. dual warmth comforters. all designed around the sleep number bed: a bed with dual-air technology that allows you to adjust to the support your body needs. each of your bodies. in the name of human individuality: the sleep number collection. discover how our sleep professionals can individualize your sleep experience. exclusively at one of our 400 sleep number stores nationwide. sleep number. comfort ... individualized. queen mattresses start at just $699. and save $500 on our special edition bed set. now at the sleep number white sale. has oats that can help lower cholesterol? and it tastes good? sure does! wow. it's the honey, it makes it taste so...
well, would you look at the time... what's the rush? be happy. be healthy. two. three. my credit card rewards are easy to remember with the bankamericard cash rewards credit card. earn 1% cash back everywhere, every time. [ both ] 2% back on groceries. [ all ] 3% on gas. no hoops to jump through. i earn more cash back on the things i buy the most. [ woman ] it's as easy as... one! -two. -[ all ] three! [ male announcer ] the bankamericard cash rewards credit card. apply online or at a bank of america near you.
[ male announcer ] the bankamericard cash rewards credit card. morning, boys. so, i'm working on a cistern intake valve, and the guy hands me a locknut wrench. no way! i'm like, what is this, a drainpipe slipknot? wherever your business takes you, nobody keeps you on the road like progressive commercial auto. [ flo speaking japanese ] [ shouting in japanese ] we work wherever you work. now, that's progressive. call or click today. jimmy has bumped me from his show, 1,205 times. for ten years, every night i wait in that green room, and every night kimmel says, apologies to matt damon, we ran out of time. if you bump a man long enough, a
night will come when he bumps you back. and tonight is that night, my friends. i am in command of this ship. tonight, tonight, good triumphs over evil. i am luke skywalker and kimmel is the death star. big and round and easily destroyed through his garbage hole. look at him over there. look at jimmy over there with the gag in his mouth. you've never been funnier, my friend. [ woman ] when you own your own business,
[ male announcer ] now manage and help protect your small business remotely with adt. arm and disarm your alarm, watch secure video in real time, and even adjust your lights and thermostat wherever you are. with adt, you get 24/7 protection through our exclusive fast-response monitoring. you can be confident that adt is always there for you. hey, lisa. is that the delivery we've been waiting for? [ male announcer ] and now you can get adt monthly service for your business starting at less than $2 a day. [ woman ] i love the convenience of adt. i can finally be in two places at once. [ male announcer ] call today and get adt for less than $2 a day. helping protect your business is our business. adt. always there.
or that printing in color had to cost a fortune. nobody said an all-in-one had to be bulky. or that you had to print from your desk. at least, nobody said it to us. introducing the business smart inkjet all-in-one series from brother. easy to use. it's the ultimate combination of speed, small size, and low-cost printing.
welcome backing to "morning joe." it's time to talk about what we learned today. harold ford, what did you learn? >> we need cuts, we need more revenue, but equally, we need growth in the economy. letting start-ups, tax reform, and regulatory reform help. that's what we need more. >> you really think we need more? >> i mean, you want to make fun of -- >> i don't ever make fun of playing. i like my politicians who play. and who have cameras around when they do.